2012 McLaren MP4-12C First Test

One for the Road: Could This be the Perfect Supercar?

Decades ago, it was easy to tell what a sports car was and what it wasn't. A sports car only had two seats, was commonly noisy and uncomfortable to drive, often had a poorly designed fabric roof that folded down much easier than it came back up, and was seldom as reliable, watertight, or economical to run as a more practical four-seat vehicle. If you bought one, your significant other wouldn't want to ride in it, your friends would think you nuts, and your parents would stay awake at night wondering how they had failed so badly. But all that changed with the Japanese Invasion in the 1970s, and small coupes like the Datsun 240Z and Mazda RX-7 showed the world that fun doesn't have to be foolish. The new breed was as practical and reliable as it was quick and fun to drive, and it forced the industry and enthusiasts to rethink the definition of a sports car.

It wasn't really until the 1990s and the introduction of the Acura NSX that the supercar was put on the same path. The NSX was proof that a fast, exotic performance car could be driven as an everyday car. Still, while rivals from Europe began to make supercars with far fewer compromises than before, they still weren't what you'd call suitable daily drivers. Sure, things have gotten better since the wedge-shaped '70s: New paddle-shift gearboxes allow a grandmother to drive a Lamborghini to her hair appointment without burning through a clutch or spraining her left leg, and rear back-up cameras mean she won't have to open the scissor door and sit on the sill in order to park the damn car.But even though you could conceivably drive a modern supercar daily, there were a whole slew of reasons why you wouldn't want to. More often than not, your average supercar is still a noisy, uncomfortable, clunky device that's difficult-to-impossible to see out of and a bear to coax through rush hour traffic. For all the new user-friendliness, the supercar was still destined to be a weekend plaything, brought out only in the finest of weather on the rarest of occasions.

Then last year, the Ferrari 458 came along and showed that not only could you drive a Ferrari every day, but you'd actually want to. And now this: the 2013 McLaren MP4-12C. While McLaren's previous road-going supercar, appropriately named the F1, was a three-seat rocket ship that placed maximum performance at the forefront, Woking engineers say this new car is perfectly suitable for your daily commute, shopping, and excursions. Should you want to have a bit of fun, it will also reportedly reach over 200 mph. So there's that, too.A large part of the McLaren's adaptability comes with its advanced and fairly unique suspension design (see illustration for more). By utilizing electronic dampers and a special hydraulic roll control system that acts as a virtual anti-roll bar, the car can be set up to provide either a very compliant ride -- one of the most compliant we've experienced in any type of car -- or a very firm one, all while keeping body roll virtually nonexistent.

In reality, the McLaren is actually a very usable car with a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde personality. It genuinely feels as happy eating up the miles and soaking up the expansion joints on the freeway to a Chopin sonata as it is hammering down your favorite back road, flames licking at the exhaust tips (yes, it shoots flames!), and making sounds so akin to a real race car's that you'd swear what you're driving can't be street legal. The McLaren pops and snarls when driven hard, and letting off the throttle abruptly brings a chirp from the 3.8-liter twin-turbo V-8's wastegates, just like you hear when watching in-car camera footage from a WRC rally. The wheel-mounted paddle shifters require a firm tug that increases the involvement level, and the steering weight is near perfect, with very good accuracy. Switch the stability control and vehicle dynamics to the Sport setting and the McLaren is all the road car you could ever want. The computers allow for a touch of oversteer when powering out of turns, but quickly (and unobtrusively) step in when confidence outweighs reality. In Track mode with ESC off, the car is more of a handful, eagerly pushing its tail wide and allowing for some playful drifts.It's also enormously capable. We brought the carbon fiber-tubbed MP4-12C out to our test location and, with the help of launch control, immediately zipped off a 3.2-second 0-60-mph run and a quarter-mile time of just 11.1 seconds at an astonishing trap speed of 129.4 mph. That's seriously quick, even for a rear-drive, 3200-pound car with 592 hp and a seven-speed dual-clutch transmission. What's more, the McLaren's EPA fuel economy rating of 15/24 mpg city/highway means it avoids the gas-guzzler tax -- something that can't be said for even our long-term Cadillac CTS-V wagon and its 14/19-mpg rating.

McLaren claims that the outward and upward-opening door design eases entry and exit. It does nothing of the sort.

Around our figure-eight course -- designed to reflect overall performance of acceleration, braking, lateral grip, and transitional behavior -- we got a time of 23.2 seconds at a 0.91g average, enough to beat both Ferrari 458 Italias we've tested and tie for time with the ballistic, 620-hp Porsche 911 GT2 RS. What's more, we ran the test with the McLaren's stability control system on and off and achieved the same result, though more consistently with ESC on. In our braking test, while the McLaren and its clever air brake (which activates when braking hard from 60 mph or higher) were able to stop in a respectable 106 feet from 60 mph, we found pedal feel a little lacking.
The real party trick comes when it's time to drive back home. A push of a button returns the vehicle settings to Normal mode, and the car will loaf along the freeway at over 70 mph, humming along at under 2000 rpm in seventh gear. With the gearbox in automatic mode, shifts are so smooth as to be virtually imperceptible and the ride is all-day comfortable. Only a bit of exhaust drone hinders the vehicle as a long-hauler, but even that can be classified as only a minor irritation. Luggage space isn't huge, but a rear shelf behind the seats and a small, yet deep, front trunk accommodate a weekend's worth of duffle bags for two people.So the McLaren is a good performance car and even a good touring car. But is it a good supercar? Is the world ready to accept a daily drivable $231,400, mid-engine road racer? Aren't outrageous features and ergonomics part of the supercar experience? Fortunately, the McLaren still has a few niggles in its design to ease the minds of those who think supercars may have gotten a bit too cuddly.
For example, while McLaren claims that the outward and upward-opening door design eases entry and exit, it does nothing of the sort. The MP4-12C isn't the most difficult car to get in and out of, but it's far from the easiest; graceless exits in front of swanky restaurants are virtually a given. Opening the door at all from the outside is also an issue. There's no physical door handle, only a touch sensor mounted underneath the top edge of the side vent, near the door's trailing edge. About half the time, we were able to open the door with no trouble at all, but the other occasions left us sweeping our fingers across the touch sensor time and again with no effect. Fortunately, McLaren engineers have seen fit to allow a long press of the key fob's unlock button to pop the driver's side door remotely. The touch-screen nav/audio interface suffers similar trouble, recognizing inputs with a much lower success rate than we're used to.Overall, the McLaren accomplishes what it sets out to do, namely providing an incredible driving experience while increasing usability. Could you drive the MP4-12C daily? You sure could. Would you want to? We would, gladly. But is the McLaren capable of outshining its obvious Ferrari 458 rival? That question hasn't escaped us, so stay tuned for a future showdown.

Read and learn something:The V8 engine in both the Ferrari California and the Italia is nothing more than an updated variation of the same engine that goes all the way back to the 348 era, nitwit. Ferrari did nothing more than update the engine with the F430 by dropping the 5th valve (totally unnecessary to begin with, oops), went to variable valve timing and some other fairly mundane changes. It's nothing more than a simple evolution, not unlike the variations of the same engine found in Maseratis for the last decade.And for you to feebly argue that a hand-built, twelve cylinder, twin turbo-charged engine built by AMG is less technically sophisticated than a dated naturally aspirated V8 officially crosses the line from simple ignorance to willful stupidity.I gave up debating morons for Lent. Sorry.

First off, you're making a lot of assumptions. I never said the California was a supercar. It's not. I never said a car that is exotic is automatically a supercar. It's not. And as the previous VW and Audi owner, if you think an Eos is better built than a Ferrari, I want some of what you're smoking. Seriously, do you read the sh!t you type on here?On top of that, you're simply wrong. The F136 engine that Ferrari has used variants of didn't debut until 2004 in the F430. And even it's extended family, which sees use in various Maseratis, has only been out since 2002. And there's next to nothing exotic about the SL65. It uses a platform shared with an $80K garden variety version driven by rich housewives. Conventional automatic. The V12 you rave about makes rather unimpressive numbers given it's cylinder count, displacement, and forced induction. It's also a rather unimpressive peice altogether in terms of 'exotica'. It's a SOHC 3V setup. It uses very high boost levels to make it's power. It's a highend GT.

Laugh. You're the one who isn't thinking clearly, my friend.Tell me what is "exotic" about a Ferrari California? It is nothing but an ugly GT car with a hood scoop, retractable roof and powered by a naturally aspirated V8 engine. Wow. So cutting edge! Spare me. A $35,000 VW Eos has the same retractable top and its no doubt better made and far more reliable than the "Fix It Again, Tony" Ferrari.And if we're defining "supercar" as having reached a certain level of technological sophistication, the SL65 AMG is considerably more "exotic" than the California as it is produced in extremely small, made-to-order numbers and has the advantage of a rare twin turbo-charged, hand-built twelve cylinder engine. The California, on the other hand, is powered by the same small block V8 that has been in production for nearly a decade and one-half.

@InfidelIf you don't think being exotic is part of the criteria for being a supercar, you're beyond help.Nobody said a car that was exotic was automatically a supercar. But a supercar needs to be exotic. They are not mutually exclusive.Furthermore, in car talk, being 'exotic' has much more to do with the technology and construction methods used rather than denoting production volume. I would think this an easy-to-grasp concept.Lastly, just for the sake of argument, 50,000 models of an ENTIRE brand for sale versus, how many Corvettes for sale at any given moment?? Now let's step it up to Chevrolets- yeah, exactly.

the characteristics and performance of this car insist it is indeed the perfect supercar. Yet there is an important detail that it is lacking; the mclaren isnt a very "supercar like" car to drive and isnt much fun as aposed to a ferarri 458 or lamborgini. In my opinion i would have th 458 but in so many ways the mp4 is a better car.

That a car is exotic has nothing to do with it being considered a supercar.The DeLorean is "exotic" and it can hardly be considered a supercar. A super POS, perhaps. The soon-to-be-extinct Fisker is another exotic, also a POS.And while we will agree many Ferraris are supercars, ask yourself, How truly "exotic" is a Ferrari? They are produced in the thousands with tens of thousands trading in the secondary markets. One expert says that, on any given day, he estimates 50,000 new and used Ferraris are available for sale.No, exotic is an altogether different definition.

Exotic is precisely what I was getting at in my earlier post. The one where I referenced cars that have lesser siblings as not being supercars. Cars built on convential platforms shared by cheaper variants are automatically nixed from supercardom. Too generic.

I haven't seen anyone bring up the term exotic. To me this is what separates a car that is fast (a supercar) from a car that is fast, rare, and particularly head turning (exotic). Anything that shares a body with a more common model cannot qualify as exotic. So while the M's, AMG's (except the SLS), 911's and Vette's are supercars, they are not exotics.

@fdDisagree on both the Aston and the SL65 AMG. Both cars are supercars on my ledger. Anything with a twelve-cylinder engine gains automatic entry into the club, regardless of the make or model... well, almost anything. Those ridiculous VW Phaetons are obviously excluded.Anyway, with 738LBFT of torque and a USD$200,000 price tag, no question the made-to-order SL65 is in the club.

If you are addressing me, I take it you mean the SLS.I would *personally* be inclined to give the SLS supercar status. It has a bespoke chassis, it's built in low volume, it has no base model, it's expensive, and while the 6.2 is used in other applications, it's tuned to 11 in the SLS.I think the car is more focused towards a GT, however, so in the vein of the DBS and California, I could also see how someone might *not* consider it a supercar.The ZR1, Z06, 911 Turbo, etc are clear-cut sportscars.

It would be nice to see more MPGs--15/24 is only decent. Why couldn't they have gotten at least 17/25? Ford avoided the guzzler tax with its 550 hp GT500 that isn't nearly as aerodynamic and that weighs at least 2 NFL linemen more.

WHERE- Where in the market place the car is positioned. I don't care how fast your car is, if you're pricing it in the same ballpark as premium sport coupes, it's NOT a supercar, sorry. Because it's obvious there is some shortcoming that prevents you from selling the car for what it *should* be worth based on it's performance. So it either doesn't have the quality, it doesn't have the exclusivity, or you don't have the premium image and experience as those who do.Hence why a 458 Italia is a quarter-of-a-million plus, and a ZR1 is half that, even though it performs very similar.I'll be the first one to call anyone out on the supercar thing, because the term gets tossed about way too freely. You don't just make a fast car and get you plaster your press releases with those 8 magical letters. You have to earn them. It's an insult to those who have made them for decades to call your slick-tired and stripped sportscar one.

Regarding the supercar arguement, I think the definition of it is far less subjective than people make it out to be.The first mistake people make when christening something a supercar is just going off of numbers. Numbers don't mean $h1t. Yeah, a ZR1 is fast. So is a Fox Bady Mustang with $20K dumped in it. So is a Panamera Turbo S. Are either of those supercars??? Of course not.I think the the two MAIN things dictating what is a supercar are the HOW and the WHERE.HOW- How the car was designed, developed, and built. A higher performing variant of a car with a convential chassis construction that is mass produced isn't a supercar. Throwing slicks and a super aggressive suspension setup on everything doesn't make it a supercar. Not even when you throw a bunch of power at it. For those reasons, the Z06 and ZR1 both are excluded from supercardom. As is the 911 Turbo. As is the GT500, the ZL1, and aything else based off a garden variety sibling.to be continued...

@ syj-Way to fly off the handle there buddy. My post wasn't even directed towards you, it was regarding supervette's post about the ZR1 being better.@ IBx1-There is an enormous difference between a high-strung 160hp fwd car and a 500hp rwd one with massive low-end torque. You're the kind of person who buys these cars and wraps them around a tree or crashes them on test drives because your bravery far exceeds your skill.

@syj:It's an interesting discussion: How do we define a supercar? My take is that it is a combination of:StylePerformanceExclusivityDesirability.Three of the four categories are entirely subjective, so it's doubtful we could ever entirely agree on an exact definition.On the other hand, as Justice Potter famously quipped when questioned about the definition of pornography, "I can't define pornography, but I know it when I see it." Likewise, I may not be able to precisely articulate the definition of a supercar, but I know it when I see it. And a Corvette--any Corvette--ain't it.

@infidel:We are talking about something subjective. In terms of performance the Z06 is a supercar and when I say performance I am talking about on a track. The GT500 will be very fast but it wont be able to beat a 458 Italia on a track. The Z06 can beat the Ferrari on a track as proven by this magazine. If you think "supercar" means $200k+ and extremely low volumes than the Z06 isnt a supercar- although more due to price than to Volume. I think I read that only 10% of corvette's are Z06s. I know I have seen very few of the current generation Z06 since its been out. By comparison I provbably see a 911 almost every week.

So many complaining about the auto transmissions...I've only had manual gearboxes my whole life and both my cars are standard,but 70% of the time i wish i had a automatic (hills,high traffic,comfort).-To those out there who are puzzled by the fact that this Mclaren only comes in auto:How fast can you switch from 2nd gear to 3rd gear? or 4th to 5th? This Mclaren can change through those gears in 0.1sec.-in case of a crash or sudden move such as loss of traction,you can over-correct with power HOWEVER with standard transmissions your immediate reaction is to press the acceleration NOT to change gears,you will likely crash.(happend to me luckily i regained control)

I made an account just to reply to you "IBx1"ALLOW ME TO QUOTE HIM"if I had a Z06 Corvette, I'd remove the traction and stability modules. ABS is the only control system I want in my car, and as it turns out, it's the only thing my '02 Si has. No traction control, no stability control, just a sweet engine and beautiful 5-speed transmission."You have a 180hp car with a 5 speed manual.FRONT WHEEL DRIVE.YOU HAVE NO IDEEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT,probably 16yrs old ricer.I'm no expert but i do not dare to turn off traction control on my 300hp bmw V8,last time i turned it off i almost tailwipped a car next to me as i was turning.With my old BMW with only ABS,i did a powerlside and lost control into a fence.I envy no man who ever turned off the traction control on a ZO6.In rain,a toyota sienna pulling a RV is faster than a ZO6 with AIDS off

McLaren has built the truly perfect daily driver supercar and has proved that you don't need to trade your engine in for a bunch of batteries or electric motors to put out a supercar that doesn't have to deal with the gas guzzler tax. I bet a little more tuning on the drive ratio and it could hit close to 30 mpg, but then if your buying this car, why would you even care?

GT-keith, if I had a Z06 Corvette, I'd remove the traction and stability modules. ABS is the only control system I want in my car, and as it turns out, it's the only thing my '02 Si has. No traction control, no stability control, just a sweet engine and beautiful 5-speed transmission.

The standard-shift transmission rhetoric is getting out of hand. Save for the transmission, manual-equipped cars come every aid that automatics come with. You can't call yourself a "purist" yet sit comfortably behind a car with a microprocessor making millions of adjustments to various parameters in any given second.

The McLaren's styling still doesn't do it for me. It's decent, but positively boring and uninspiring next to the Ferrari 458 Italia and Mercedes-Benz SLS AMG "Gullwing." If I had $200,000 to spend on a car, I'd buy one of those two, instead.

A supercar that you can live with and drive everyday is an accomplishment but it may also be an answer to a question that nobody asked. The MP4-12C is a wonderful car (the MP4-12C High Sport is even better) and I'd easily take this over a GT2RS but I'd rather have a slightly used McLaren F1. That may be the biggest problem. The F1 casts such a large shadow, it's hard for the 12C to shine. After the F1's replacement comes out, maybe it will be easier to appreciate the MP4-12C.

syj:Thanks for making my point.The GT500 straight off the production line will run low 3-second 0-60MPH and 200+MPH on the top end, fast enough to run with any supercar. Toss in a few inexpensive go-faster goodies from the FRPP catalog and the performance only gets better. And yet, according to your definition, it "... isn't on the same level." True, it isn't. Just as the ZO6 (or ZR1 or GT-R) will never be on the same level as Lamborghini, Ferrari, McLaren, etc. Performance is not the equalizer.

@IBx1:I am totally with you on this one. Fewer and fewer manuals out there. Why? Because everyone is excessively smitten with pure 0-60/100/125 times and bragging rights of being the fastest, even though it is not them making the car go fast, it is electronics. Button here, button there, computers everywhere...I do not care how much slower I am then the next guy, they will have to pry the stick out of my cold hand!

@indifel:You can call the Z06 a subcompact, chick car, minivan or whatever- all Im talking about is what it can do relative to this $231k car. Part of of the "supercar" title relates to performance. On those grounds the Z06 and ZR1 are supercars- the GT500 isnt on the same level.

@syj:See my earlier comment about speed and performance being commoditized. The ZO6 is a prime example of this; the GT500 is an even better example. However, neither car, in spite of its respective capabilities, can be considered a supercar.

@Frisky:why do people make the same stupid comments everytime ANY expensive sports car is compared to the corvette? Who here has said this car is the most likely competitor for ANY corvette? No one. I said that for all this money this car still cant beat a Z06 around the figure 8 course or a track. Thats impressive for the Z06. Its not about the two cars being direct competitors, its about recognizing how much of a performance beast the Z06 really is when equipped with the best tires and brakes. We all know the materials and seats are $130k better in this car- its the same old story. But once you look at the handling performance it can't top the Chevy. People like you claim that there is "no comparison" between the Vette and any pricier sports cars. Hell, some folks even say there is no comparison between the GTR and the Vette because the GTR is so great.

Looks awesome. Great to see them develop the car themselves. That was my only gripe on their F1 as the "heart" was all BMW. Not this time around (and I know the history on this engine isn't 100% in-house but much closer). Well done.

If you are going to compare these cars then you also need to throw in the 911 turbo S. I know that it doesn't meet the same price point as the other two, but it did start the daily driver supercar status. Long live the king.

The MP4-12C is what happens when you turn over the keys to the design studio exclusively to engineers. Sure, it's fast. So what? In 2012, speed and performance are commodities. The MP4-12C is ugly and uninspiring; even the name lacks emotion. The same problem is occurring at Ferrari where they are building terrifically fast machines that fail to inspire any emotional response. Thankfully, Lamborghini still "gets it." Contrast the MP4-12C against the Aventador. Two machines capable of extreme levels of performance, but only one is a genuine supercar in my book. The Aventador is proof that spectacular engineering doesn't have to be boring.

Anyone saying any Corvette is better is completely dellusional. End of story. This car isn't even in the same league.Anyways, while I find this car and it's performance very impressive, it just doesn't do it for me. Idk quite why, but it's the same way with the 458 Italia. They both, but especially, the Mac, seem a bit too clinical for my tastes.I don't expect a supercar to be undriveable by default, but I expect some compromises for the sake of the experience that is intended.To me, the Carrera GT was and is the pinacle of supercars. A feast of gorgeous engineering; technical perfection. So many others try too hard from a styling, or usability standpoint. A supercar shouldn't just be function over form, it should function over ALL else.That said, I'd take one of these over the 458 hands down.

So if im understanding this correctly the mclaren didnt match or beat the Z06s figure 8 time. For $231k it should be able to. Then again, this car makes the Italia and LF-A seem very overpriced. And it looks a lot better than the Lexus.